nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

J C

I don't believe that a Christian can morally vote for unlimited abortion.

The Sixth Commandment is very simple and very clear ... 'Thou shalt not kill'.

It means that you cannot kill yourself or another Human Being, except in self defence (or the defence of another Human Being) where no other option is available.
This is the basis for all laws protecting the person and criminalising the killing of other people in Common Law Jurisprudence.

Induced abortion is ethically and morally wrong ... except where the life of the mother is directly threatened and there is no other option available to save her.

This is the current law in Ireland.

Voting to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children is not something that any Christian (or other monotheist, indeed) can do in conscience and in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

J C

david75 wrote: »

Forcing. Key word there JC. And yes our current version of Christianity is forcing women against their will and is no better or different than sharia law.

We are all 'forced' to behave ethically in our dealings with others ... and especially when it comes to the lives of others.
The alternative is the 'law of the jungle' where the relatively strong kill the weak and vulnerable, with impunity ... just because they can!!

Women theselves are beneficiaries of the legal protection of the relativley weak from the strong ... for example. where a man hits a woman, the law (correctly) assumes the man to be in the wrong for such bahaviour, because of the relative strength of both parties ...

... and then when a woman is the stronger party ... we find that some women demand that they be allowed to kill the unborn weaker party !!!

... its a "what's yours is mine ... and what's mine is my own" scenario ... and it is deeply hypocritical.

J C

Delirium wrote: »

It's for that very reason many people can't get on board with forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when she doesn't consent to it.

We are all 'forced' to not kill others ... for most of us we consider it normal behaviour to not kill ... so we are actually being 'forced' to do something that we wouldn't to do, in the first place.

Why are women so 'special' that they should be allowed to exempt themselves from the societal norm of not killing others?

end of the road

Peregrinus wrote: »

You weren't able to confirm it but you still presume it to be true?

Seriously, does the fact that you couldn't confirm it not give you any pause for thought? Surely, it must have occurred to you that one possible explanation for your inability to confirm it is that it isn't true?

no

i'm not religious myself, but i do have a small bit of knowledge on christianity. one of the fundamental teachings of christianity is one shall not kill, and therefore on that basis i'm assuming that the church is fully behind that viewpoint

Peregrinus

end of the road wrote: »

in my view they are not christians yes . they have killed the unborn and according to christian teaching one shall not kill. i presume the church feels the same but i couldn't confirm that.

You weren't able to confirm it but you still presume it to be true?

Seriously, does the fact that you couldn't confirm it not give you any pause for thought? Surely, it must have occurred to you that one possible explanation for your inability to confirm it is that it isn't true?

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sounds like you are just using religious ideals to take advantage of your own opinion on the matter.

as you well know, it sounds like nothing of the sort, because i'm doing nothing of the sort. i was simply asked a question and i answered it. i'm very happy with my opinion on the matter.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

in my view they are not christians yes . they have killed the unborn and according to christian teaching one shall not kill. i presume the church feels the same but i couldn't confirm that.

Sounds like you are just using religious ideals to take advantage of your own opinion on the matter.

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

Very many women in this countries that have had abortions are also Christians. Do you consider them no longer to be Christians, and more importantly, does their church?

in my view they are not christians yes . they have killed the unborn and according to christian teaching one shall not kill. i presume the church feels the same but i couldn't confirm that.

Cabaal

pitifulgod wrote: »

The exact same argument could have been used against the marriage referendum. I know highly religious people who simply don't agree with aspects of Catholicism, it's applicable to much of the state's Catholics I imagine.

One of the most religious people I know (catholic faith) has zero issue with contraception, but at the same time will claim much of the sexual abuse against the same church was made up.

People can and do certainly choose what they agree or disagree with, though I suppose the belief that much of the sexual abuse was made up is sort of following the Vatican as the claimed this for years

Delirium

J C wrote: »

These are individual voluntary choices ... which harm nobody else, when made or not made.

... abortion always kills the unborn child ... which is harming somebody else.

Abortion is more like drink driving, engaging in violence and treating other people inequitably ... indeed abortion is a life destroying violent act that kills a totally vulnerable and innocent unborn child.

So a pregnant woman is equivalent to a drunk person? And having abortion is drink driving? Interesting to see that you consider a pregnant woman to have impaired judgement (as a drunk person has).

The 8th is a piece of equality legislation ... that balances the very life of the unborn ... with the relatively minor inconvenience of bringing a pregnancy to term ... in most cases.
... and, as has already been said on this thread, situations of extremis can be (and have been) legislated for under the 8th.
... and if more is required, then that should be enacted.

So should labs that hold frozen embryos be prosecuted for imprisoning hundreds of people?

The decision facing the Irish people, however, is to vote to remove the 8th, thereby removing all protection for the unborn ... with unlimited abortion to 12 weeks being enacted immmediately ... and nothing stopping abortion being introduced right up to birth ... as currently is allowed (and done) under English legislation for things like Cleft Palate and Downs Syndrome, for example.

Can you provide proof that abortions are carried out right up to birth. I accept that it's legal under some circumstances, but does it happen as you claim?

The current English Law allows abortion up to the point of birth for situations where:-

" there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

... a piece of eugenics legislation that would be hard to surpass in its blatant discrimination against unborn children with disabilities ... by differentially killing them.

Abortion on request is proposed for up to 12 weeks. How many types can be detected in the womb before the 12 week window expires?

pitifulgod

end of the road wrote: »

well i actually do mean cannot in a religious context.
of course legally they can vote whatever way they want but religiously they must vote no to anything that allows something that goes against fundamental teachings of the religion.

The exact same argument could have been used against the marriage referendum. I know highly religious people who simply don't agree with aspects of Catholicism, it's applicable to much of the state's Catholics I imagine.

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

Anything else is just words claiming they can't, which are baseless and have zero enforcement to stop them from actually voting as they see fit. So again the correct word is "should"

They should not vote xyz way because of God.

Or maybe even 'the Church instructs and demands that they vote xyz', as it has in the recent past to little effect.

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

christians cannot go against fundamental teachings of the religion. i'm non-religious myself and i know this. they cannot vote for abortion on demand.

With respect, that is an odd comment for a non-religious person to make. Whether or not you consider someone to be a Christian based on how rigidly they adhere to the rules of their church really has no bearing on their religious identity. Christians can and do go against fundamental teachings of their religion all the time, wouldn't be a whole lot of point of having notions such as sin if they didn't. Similarly, if we look at other changes in our society, we see Catholics availing of contraception, morning after pills and voting for same sex marriage all against the stated position of their church. Are they no longer Catholics as a result? Very many women in this countries that have had abortions are also Christians. Do you consider them no longer to be Christians, and more importantly, does their church?

I say this as a life-long atheist myself, and my experience has been that you can't predict someones behaviour base on their nominal religious affiliation.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

but religiously they must vote no to anything that allows something that goes against fundamental teachings of the religion.

Also now you've changed to "must", what happened to cannot?

Must and should are in the same ballpark,
are you just going to admit your use of cannot was incorrect and inaccurate?

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

well i actually do mean cannot in a religious context.
of course legally they can vote whatever way they want but religiously they must vote no to anything that allows something that goes against fundamental teachings of the religion.

They have free will to vote as they wish, they don't have to agree with the Bible 100%, a large amount of Christians don't agree with everything in it. That's the hard reality.

Anything else is just words claiming they can't, which are baseless and have zero enforcement to stop them from actually voting as they see fit. So again the correct word is "should"

They should not vote xyz way because of God.

end of the road

Cabaal wrote: »

Nonsense,

You keep saying they cannot, this is a very misleading statement to make a very inaccurate.

You very clearly mean "should" instead cannot.
a Christian can do whatever they want.

well i actually do mean cannot in a religious context.
of course legally they can vote whatever way they want but religiously they must vote no to anything that allows something that goes against fundamental teachings of the religion.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

christians cannot go against fundamental teachings of the religion. i'm non-religious myself and i know this. they cannot vote for abortion on demand.

Nonsense,

You keep saying they cannot, this is a very misleading statement to make and very inaccurate.

You very clearly mean "should" instead cannot.
a Christian can do whatever they want at the end of the day.

A Christian can commit rape for example , it would be very silly to claim a Christian cannot commit rape. It would be more accurate to say a Christian should not commit a rape.

Any Christian can vote to repeal and enable our government to legislate, there's nothing stopping them doing so, just like any Christian can and majority did vote for marriage equality.

Timberrrrrrrr

J C wrote: »

You have a natural love for your kin ... but Christianity demands that you love all people, including people you have no personal relationship with.

So if someone was to kill one of my children tomorrow you are saying i should "love" them?

david75

Delirium wrote: »

It's for that very reason many people can't get on board with forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when she doesn't consent to it.

Forcing. Key word there JC. And yes our current version of Christianity is forcing women against their will and is no better or different than sharia law.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

You have a natural love for your kin ... but Christianity demands that you love all people, including people you have no personal relationship with.

It's for that very reason many people can't get on board with forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term when she doesn't consent to it.

J C

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I love my sisters and friends and aunts and my mother than I love any unborn ‘neighbor’.

You have a natural love for your kin ... but Christianity demands that you love all people, including people you have no personal relationship with.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I couldn’t possibly imaging forcing motherhood on someone who didn’t want it just because it isn’t something I would do.

... and you think that forcibly killing their unborn child is the moral alternative?
Nobody is talking about forcing motherhood on these women ... they have become pregnant ... and now there are two lives in play ... in most cases a perfectly healthy woman and a perfectly healthy unborn child.
All the woman has to do is to let nature take its course ... and when the child is born ... she can keep it or put it up for fosterage or adoption, depending on her circumstances ... and her wishes.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I would never have an abortion myself, but I have no right to dictate what another woman does with the contents of her womb.
Christians should allow each person to make their own decision without forcing their beliefs into others.

As a society we regulate the behaviour of our fellow citizens on far more trivial things than abortion. For example, we rigidly enforce arbitrary speed limits, in the belief that this will reduce road accidents and improve the out-turn of accidents that do occur.

Abortion always kills an unborn child ... and we therefore have an even greater right and obligation to enforce legislation regulating this killing.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I love my sisters and friends and aunts and my mother than I love any unborn ‘neighbor’.

I couldn’t possibly imaging forcing motherhood on someone who didn’t want it just because it isn’t something I would do.

I would never have an abortion myself, but I have no right to dictate what another woman does with the contents of her womb.
Christians should allow each person to make their own decision without forcing their beliefs into others.

the thread is about whether christians can vote for abortion. not about other's beliefs or christians forcing beliefs on others.

SusieBlue

J C wrote: »

They may do so ... but if they are Christian, they cannot in conscience, vote to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God to not kill innocent Human life.
It would also be in total contravention of the other great tenet of the Christian Faith to love your (born and unborn) neighbour as yourself.

I love my sisters and friends and aunts and my mother than I love any unborn ‘neighbor’.

I couldn’t possibly imaging forcing motherhood on someone who didn’t want it just because it isn’t something I would do.

I would never have an abortion myself, but I have no right to dictate what another woman does with the contents of her womb.
Christians should allow each person to make their own decision without forcing their beliefs into others.

J C

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Course they can...watch.!

They may do so ... but if they are Christian, they cannot in conscience, vote to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God to not kill innocent Human life.
It would also be in total contravention of the other great tenet of the Christian Faith to love your (born and unborn) neighbour as yourself.

end of the road

Odyssey 2005 wrote: »

Course they can...watch.!

christians cannot go against fundamental teachings of the religion. i'm non-religious myself and i know this. they cannot vote for abortion on demand.

Odyssey 2005

J C wrote: »

I don't believe that a Christian can morally vote for unlimited abortion.

The Sixth Commandment is very simple and very clear ... 'Thou shalt not kill'.

It means that you cannot kill yourself or another Human Being, except in self defence (or the defence of another Human Being) where no other option is available.
This is the basis for all laws protecting the person and criminalising the killing of other people in Common Law Jurisprudence.

Induced abortion is ethically and morally wrong ... except where the life of the mother is directly threatened and there is no other option available to save her.

This is the current law in Ireland.

Voting to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children is not something that any Christian (or other monotheist, indeed) can do in conscience and in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God.

Course they can...watch.!

J C

Delirium wrote: »

Sure, let's have a go.

'I'm not in favour of Christianity ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of marriage ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of having children ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

So, to avoid a 'cop-out' we'll ban Christianity and marriage as well as legally requiring all adults to have children.

Because respecting other peoples perspectives is a bad thing! And we can't be having that! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

These are individual voluntary choices ... which harm nobody else, when made or not made.

... abortion always kills the unborn child ... which is harming somebody else.

Abortion is more like drink driving, engaging in violence and treating other people inequitably ... indeed abortion is a life destroying violent act that kills a totally vulnerable and innocent unborn child.
The 8th is a piece of equality legislation ... that balances the very life of the unborn ... with the relatively minor inconvenience of bringing a pregnancy to term ... in most cases.
... and, as has already been said on this thread, situations of extremis can be (and have been) legislated for under the 8th.
... and if more is required, then that should be enacted.

The decision facing the Irish people, however, is to vote to remove the 8th, thereby removing all protection for the unborn ... with unlimited abortion to 12 weeks being enacted immmediately ... and nothing stopping abortion being introduced right up to birth ... as currently is allowed (and done) under English legislation for things like Cleft Palate and Downs Syndrome, for example.

The current English Law allows abortion up to the point of birth for situations where:-

" there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

... a piece of eugenics legislation that would be hard to surpass in its blatant discrimination against unborn children with disabilities ... by differentially killing them.

Delirium

J C wrote: »

'Im-not-in-favour-of-abortion-but-im-not-going-to-tell-anyone-else-what-to-do'

... a bit of a cop-out actually ... just replace 'abortion' with something else and see what I mean.

Sure, let's have a go.

'I'm not in favour of Christianity ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of marriage ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of having children ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

So, to avoid a 'cop-out' we'll ban Christianity and marriage as well as legally requiring all adults to have children.

Because respecting other peoples perspectives is a bad thing! And we can't be having that! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

So, given so many people like to claim we are a "catholic country" and the majority religion on the census is catholic.

What does the avg (most likely) catholic on the street think about the ref?

Pretty mature responses overall,

'Im-not-in-favour-of-abortion-but-im-not-going-to-tell-anyone-else-what-to-do'

... a bit of a cop-out actually ... just replace 'abortion' with something else and see what I mean.

'I'm not in favour of drink driving ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of violence ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

'I'm not in favour of inequality ... but I'm not going to tell anybody else what to do.'

J C

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Less of the unfounded and un-parliamentary language ... please.

J C

david75 wrote: »

Unless they happen to be women.

Remind me again how you have a say over a woman’s body?

While you’re at it remind me how your level of ‘faith’ is any less frightening than sharia law?

The basic tenet of Christianity ... to love one's neighbour as oneself applies equally to women Christians as it does to men Christians.
... and an unborn child is surely deserving of the same love as any other Human Being anybody may come across.
... we all have a say over how everybody uses their bodies ... when such 'usage' interferes with the rights of others.

... and as my faith is one of love and forgiveness for my fellow man (and woman) ... it has nothing in common with sharia law.

... and loving your unborn child as yourself can never justify procured abortion (except in absolute extremis).